On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org>
wrote:
> On 23 January 2015 at 16:17, Greg Bellows <greg.bell...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > Added CP register definitions for SP_EL1 and SP_EL2.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Greg Bellows <greg.bell...@linaro.org>
> > Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org>
> >
> > ---
> >
> > v1 -> v2
> > - Remove unnecessary accessfn for SP_EL1/2
> > - Revert SP_EL0 accessfn name to sp_el0_access
> > ---
> > target-arm/helper.c | 8 ++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/target-arm/helper.c b/target-arm/helper.c
> > index 29f3b62..79c54a9 100644
> > --- a/target-arm/helper.c
> > +++ b/target-arm/helper.c
> > @@ -2329,6 +2329,10 @@ static const ARMCPRegInfo v8_cp_reginfo[] = {
> > .access = PL1_RW, .accessfn = sp_el0_access,
> > .type = ARM_CP_NO_MIGRATE,
> > .fieldoffset = offsetof(CPUARMState, sp_el[0]) },
> > + { .name = "SP_EL1", .state = ARM_CP_STATE_AA64,
> > + .opc0 = 3, .opc1 = 4, .crn = 4, .crm = 1, .opc2 = 0,
> > + .access = PL2_RW, .type = ARM_CP_NO_MIGRATE,
> > + .fieldoffset = offsetof(CPUARMState, sp_el[1]) },
> > { .name = "SPSel", .state = ARM_CP_STATE_AA64,
> > .opc0 = 3, .opc1 = 0, .crn = 4, .crm = 2, .opc2 = 0,
> > .type = ARM_CP_NO_MIGRATE,
> > @@ -2410,6 +2414,10 @@ static const ARMCPRegInfo v8_el2_cp_reginfo[] = {
> > .access = PL2_RW, .writefn = vbar_write,
> > .fieldoffset = offsetof(CPUARMState, cp15.vbar_el[2]),
> > .resetvalue = 0 },
> > + { .name = "SP_EL2", .state = ARM_CP_STATE_AA64,
> > + .opc0 = 3, .opc1 = 6, .crn = 4, .crm = 1, .opc2 = 0,
> > + .access = PL3_RW, .type = ARM_CP_NO_MIGRATE,
> > + .fieldoffset = offsetof(CPUARMState, sp_el[2]) },
> > REGINFO_SENTINEL
> > };
>
> As I was assembling my target-arm queue I found that this patch
> and the 'split ARM_CP_NO_MIGRATE' patch semantically conflict;
> since this patch happened to be earlier in the queue than that
> one, I've resolved this by adding changes to the 'split' patch
> which change these ARM_CP_NO_MIGRATE uses to ARM_CP_ALIAS, in
> line with how we handled the SP_EL0 regdef.
>
> thanks
> -- PMM
>
That makes sense.
